Every week in Havdala
we proclaim that Hashem separates between holy and mundane, light and darkness,
'Israel and the nations' and between Shabbos and weekdays. The clear
implication is that we as Jews are or are supposed to be distinct from others, akin
to holiness and light as opposed to mundane and dark. What does this mean
philosophically, and what are the practical applications?
In the Torah
There are a
number of places in the Torah itself where this principle appears. The promise that
"all the families/nations of the Earth will be blessed through you"
is repeated to Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov no fewer than five times.[1]
Prior to Matan Torah, Hashem tells us through Moshe Rabbeinu that we will be a segula
(treasure) out of all the nations.[2]
Moshe reminds us of this several times subsequently,[3]
adding that we will be 'superior' to all the other nations.[4]
In one of these
places, a cryptic explanation is given as to why Hashem chose us for this
purpose – "out of Hashem's love of you and His honouring the oath that He
swore to your fathers".[5]
These two reasons do not seem to stand alone. If Hashem chose us because He
loves us, we obviously still need an explanation as to why He loves us. Honouring
the promise made to our fathers would appear to be a technicality, making our
status as a 'treasure' far from inherent.
While I don't
have any overly convincing resolution of these verses, I believe that the
general idea the Torah is telling us here is that there is something integral
about us that Hashem loves.[6]
It is indeed true that the particular trait or traits have not been specified
here, leaving much room for speculation.
Accepting and
Keeping the Torah
Chazal tell us
that before Hashem gave us the Torah, He offered it to all the other nations.
Although they rejected it and we accepted it, this alone is not enough for us
to deserve special treatment. The other nations can retort that had Hashem forced
them by hanging a mountain over them like a barrel, as he did to us, they too
would have accepted the Torah.
The answer to
this claim is that the nations of the world did not even keep the seven mitzvos
that are incumbent upon them.[7]
Thus the claim that they too would have accepted the Torah if forced may be
true; the difference is that they certainly would not have kept it. This is why
Hashem chose us by 'forcing' us to accept the Torah.[8]
With this in
mind, we can begin to understand the historical popularity of the Christian
claim that the covenant with the Jewish people terminated once we stopped
keeping the Torah and the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed. If keeping the Torah
was the whole basis of our superiority, what justification can there be for our
special status without keeping the Torah?
The claim is not
entirely false. Chazal tell us that when we carry out the will of Hashem, no
other nation has power of us. When we don't, Hashem delivers us into the
control of a lowly nation and even in to the control of their animals.[9]
Our preferential treatment is truly only in merit of keeping the Torah, explaining
why many of the interpersonal mitzvos only apply between religious Jews.[10]
However, it is also
clear throughout the Tanakh that G-d's covenant with us is everlasting.[11]
It must be that mass transgression of the Torah is not equivalent to the entire
Jewish people forsaking G-d. It would appear that as long as our nation preserves
the Torah to the extent that a community of religious Jews exists, we retain
our status as His chosen people. As we are also assured that "the Torah
will never be forgotten from Israel,"[12]
we will also never lose the right to our special privileges. The realising of
this right, however, will only be at times when we keep the Torah.
Are we
inherently different?
For all the
above to be true, there is no need to claim any intrinsic racial superiority.
Anyone could have chosen to question the idolatry practiced at the time of
Avraham Avinu and come to the discovery of Hashem; Avraham merited being chosen
as he was the only one who actually did it. Our forefathers instilled in us the
values which lasted until we accepted the Torah and beyond, enabling us to be
more suited to teaching G-d's ways to the world.
For this reason,
any non-Jew also has the ability to make the same decision and become part of
the Jewish people.[13]
And as mentioned above, a Jew who forsakes the Torah is at least temporarily
divorcing himself from his chosen status.
However, there
are those who have taken this a step further. R' Yehuda HaLevi famously writes
that the 'Divine aspect' was given to Adam HaRishon and passed down to just one
son each generation, until Ya'akov Avinu who had 12 sons all suited to this Divine
aspect. From then on this quality was preserved for all the descendants.[14]
Although even those born without it can convert, this will not endow them with
quite the same nature that those born Jewish have. Thus a convert can never be
a prophet.[15]
This last point
about converts was subject to much criticism, not least because the gemara says
that the prophet Ovadya was an Edomite convert.[16]
I am more bothered by the seeming lack of evidence for the entire extreme idea
of R' Yehuda HaLevi, versions of which have subsequently been adopted by Maharal[17]
and many other mystical writers. It also would seem to diminish the achievements
of Avraham Avinu, as according to this he was the one born with a greater
ability than anyone else in his generation.[18]
However, I believe that accusations of racism in the classic sense are
unfounded. The 'Divine aspect' theory does not say that Jewish genes are
superior; merely that Hashem bestows upon us an ability that others do not have.
Those with a
more rationalist approach never accepted this concept of the Kuzari. The Rambam
writes that whether or not we believe a person who claims to be a prophet is
based entirely on his message and evidence, irrespective of their origins and
nationality.[19]
Although I have not seen anyone who explicitly disputes the main 'Divine
aspect' idea as a whole, it seems safe to say that all those who wrote
comprehensive philosophical works and did not mention any such concept, do not
believe in it.
On the other
hand, it is well known that the Rambam writes that one of the thirteen
fundamental principles of our faith is the existence of the Messianic era, including
the restoration of the Davidic dynasty.[20]
If our being chosen is entirely based on the keeping of the Torah, it seems
strange that the realisation of this is a fundamental belief. What exactly will
force us to return to the level of observance required of us to merit being
redeemed?[21]
This question
may have been what led R' Yehuda HaLevi to develop the 'Divine aspect' theory.
For those of us who are not satisfied by this explanation, the issue remains similar
to most questions we have about the End of Days – a mystery.[22]
[2] Shemos 19:5
[3] Devarim 7:6, 14:2, 26:18
[4] Ibid. 26:19
[5] Ibid. 7:8
[6] See Kli Yakar and R' Hirsch, who both explain along these lines.
They imply that the stress is more on the word 'you' and less on the 'love.'
[7] All this in Avoda Zara 2b.
[8] See Tosfos Chachmei Anglia ibid.. Exactly what was accepted
willingly and what was 'forced' is not my topic of discussion here.
[9] Kesuvos 66b.
[10] This is explicit in Yevamos 22b regarding the prohibition of
cursing and discussed extensively in relation to other mitzvos such as
returning lost property. Practically speaking we tend not to differentiate so
as not to create animosity (some also claim that the distinction does not apply
to those who were not given a religious upbringing), but the fundamental
principle remains true.
[12] See Devarim 31:21 and Shabbos 138b. This promise is presumably part
of the reward given to Avraham Avinu.
[13] Although there are a few halachos that differentiate between born
Jews and converts (the prime examples being that converts cannot marry Cohanim
or be appointed to positions of authority), these are due to special high
standards that require the absence of certain past associations.
[14] Kuzari 1:47
[15] Ibid. 1:115
[16] Sanhedrin 39b. Non-Jewish prophets such as Bilam also seem to be
problematic.
[18] It is also a worrying step towards determinism.
[19] Igeres Teiman
[20] Commentary to the Mishna, Introduction to Perek Cheilek.
[21] Although the Tana'im
dispute whether repentance is a necessary prerequisite to the Redemption in
Sanhedrin 97b-98a, and the conclusion is that it is not necessary, this itself
requires explanation. If this is merely a reward for the
actions of previous generations, why is this a fundamental principle of faith?
[22] At least in my mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment